3 ms·
working as dev with academic teams, I usually use many repos for "damage control" as git-ignorant scientists will dump irrelevant files into a repo. with that
by marmaduke 8y ago
working as dev with academic teams, I usually use many repos for "damage control" as git-ignorant scientists will dump irrelevant files into a repo.
with that in mind, is monorepo is a universally good approach or is more dependent on good behavior of team members than polyrepo?
- jakoblorz 8y agoI don't think that there is the one size fits all solution especially if you can't expect basic knowledge about git
- paulddraper 8y agoIs there frequent code reuse? If so, monorepos are really nice. If not, separate repos make more sense.
- wirrbel 8y agoA monorepo requires a good Continuous Integration infrastructure if it is supposed to work. Unless those small repos are will be unit tested, you will not benefit from a monorepo. Suppose for your projects you have a utility library `lib_a`, in a polyrepo situation, your projects will use it in probably different versions, which means you have coordination effort necessary to get everyone on the latest release. The monorepo would enable the developers of `lib_a` to get feedback from the downstream test suites directly on whether the changes they perform are breaking user code, so they can up front introduce their changes less intrusive. They can however also roll out security-relevant changes much more easily. The monorepo will make the projects more homogeneous, which facilitates integration and operations (there are exceptions of course).